|
CACV 507/2021, [2023] HKCA 674
On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 368
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 507 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 682 OF 2019 AND 1893 OF 2020)
____________________
| RE: |
Ernawati Sugito |
1st Applicant |
| |
SYED AYAAN ALI |
2nd Applicant |
| |
SYED MARYAM |
3rd Applicant |
____________________
| Before: |
Hon G Lam JA and Barnes J in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
24 April 2023 |
| Date of Judgment: |
1 June 2023 |
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicants’ claims for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong were rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). Their application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Their appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 4 April 2023.
2. By Notice of Motion filed on 11 April 2023, the applicants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. In that document the applicants simply stated that they wanted to challenge the decision.
3. In their written submissions lodged on 24 April 2023, the applicants simply repeated the basis of their claims for non-refoulement protection and stated they wanted to go to the CFA.
4. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.
5. We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicants have not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because they have failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
6. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
(Judianna Barnes)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Applicants, unrepresented, acting in person
|